Sunday, July 1, 2012

Info Czar's Cass Sunstein's Conspiracy Theories

The President with his Information Czar Cass Sunstein, who thinks Conspiracy Theories are a threat.

Cass Sunstein, the President's Information Czar, has written a dissertation on conspiracy theories in which he uses the Kennedy assassination as an example, says conspiracy theorists suffer from a faulty epistemology and calls for cognitive infiltration of conspiracy theory groups.

Sunstein, one of the targets of our petition calling for the release of the remaining withheld JFK assassination records, defines conspiracy theory as "a conspiracy theory can generally be counted as
such if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the
machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Well the conspiracy theory that we allege is not one to kill the President, but one to conceal the government records related to the assassination, a conspiracy that exists within the US government today and one whose practitioners cannot conceal their roles, one of whom is Cass Sunstein himself.

“Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they
believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the
truth about some important practice or some terrible event…and the existence of
such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first
challenge is to understand the mechanics by which conspiracy theories prosper;
the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined.
Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders,
operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A
distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy
theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their
theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the
conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a
‘crippled epistemology,’ in accordance with which it is rational to hold such
theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist
groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for
government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this
light.”

“There has been much discussion of what, exactly, counts as
a conspiracy theory, and about what, if anything is wrong with those who hold
one. We…suggest more intuitively that a conspiracy theory can generally be
counted as such if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by
reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to
conceal their role. The account seems to capture the essence of the most
prominent and influential conspiracy theories. Consider, for example, the view
that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy…” [Sunstein also mentions a half dozen others not
relevant here]

“Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition,
have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by the Democratic
National Committee was, in fact, bugged by the Republican officials, operating
at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency
did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an
effort to investigate the possibility of ‘mind control.’ Operations Northwoods,
a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and
to blame them on Cuba,
really was proposed by high-level officials (thought the plan never went into
effet). In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell,
New Mexico, and the government covered it
up. (Well, maybe not) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not
true ones. Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine
such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.”

“Conspiracy theories generally attribute extraordinary
powers to certain agents – to plan, to control others, to maintain secrets, and
so forth. Those who believe that those agents have such powers are especially
unlikely to give respectful attention to debunkers, who may, after all, be
agents or dupes of those who are responsible for the conspiracy in the first
instance. It is comparatively easier for government to dispel false and
dangerous beliefs that rest, not on a self-sealing conspiracy theory, but on
simple misinformation or on a fragile social consensus. The simplest government
technique for dispelling false (and also harmful) beliefs – providing credible
public information – does not work, in any straightforward way, for conspiracy
theories. This extra resistance to correction through simple techniques is what
makes conspiracy theories distinctively worrisome.”

“A broader point is that conspiracy theories overestimate
the competence and discretion of officials and bureaucracies, who are assumed
to be able to make and carry out sophisticated secret plans, despite abundant
evidence that in open societies government action does not usually remain
secret for very long.”

“In a closed society, secrets are not difficult to keep, and
distrust of official accounts makes a great deal of sense. In such societies,
conspiracy theories are both more likely to be true and harder to show to be
false in light of available information. But when the press is free, and when checks
and balances are in force, government cannot easily keep its conspiracies
hidden for long. These points do not mean that it is logically impossible, even
in free societies, that conspiracy theories are true. But it does mean that
institutional checks make it unlikely, in such societies, that powerful groups
can keep dark secrets for extended periods, at least if those secrets involve
important events with major social salience.”

“This is not, and is not be intended to be, a general claim
that conspiracy theories are unjustified or unwarranted. Much depends on the
background state of knowledge-producing institutions. If those institutions are
generally trustworthy, in part because they are embedded in an open society
with a well-functioning marketplace of ideas and a free flow of information,
then conspiracy theories will generally (which is not to say always) be
unjustified. On the other hand, individuals in societies with systematically
malfunctioning or skewed institutions of knowledge – say, individuals who live
in an authoritarian regime lacking a free press – may have good reason to
distrust all or most of the official denials they here. For these individuals,
conspiracy theories will more often be warranted, whether true or not ture.”

“Perhaps conspiracy theories are a product of mental
illness, such as paranoia or narcissism. And indeed, there can be no doubt that
some people who accept conspiracy theories are mentally ill and subject to
delusions. But we have seen that in many communities and even nations, such
theories are widely held. It is not plausible to suggest that all or most
members of those communities are afflicted by mental illness. The most
important conspiracy theories are hardly limited to those who suffer from any
kind of pathology.”

“Terrible events produce outrage, and when people are
outraged, they are all the more likely to attribute those events to intentional
action…Some people would find it impossibly jarring to think that the CIA
was responsible for the assassination of a civil rights leader; that thought
would unsettle too many of their other judgments. Others would find those other
judgments strongly supported, even confirmed, by the suggestion that the CIA
was responsible for such an assassination.”

“There are points about individual judgments, bracketing
social influences. But after some bad event has occurred, those influences are
crucial, for most people have no direct information about its cause. How many
people know, directly or on the basis of personal investigation, whether…Lee
Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy on his own? Inevitably people must rely
on the beliefs of other people. Some people require a great deal of evidence in
order to accept a conspiracy theory; others will require much less. People will
therefore have different ‘thresholds’ for accepting or rejecting such a theory
and for acting on the basis of the theory. One way to meet a relevant threshold
is to supply direct or indirect evidence. Another way is simply to show that
some, many, or most (trusted) people accept or reject the theory. These are the
appropriate circumstances for social cascades, in particular information
cascades, whose dynamics help explain the pervasive acceptance of conspiracy
theories.”

“What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the
things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of
possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2)
Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who
disseminate such theories. (3) Government might engage in counterspeech,
marshalling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might
formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5)
Government might engage in informal communication with such parties,
encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable
conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in
cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which
involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).”

“…We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard
core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories; congnitive infiltration of
extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either
virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine
the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They o so by
planning doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within
such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”

“We will ask whether judges do more good than harm by
invoking statutes such as the Freedom of Information Act to force government to
disclose facts that would rebut conspiracy theories. Our conclusions are
generally skeptical; there is little reason to believe that judges can improve
on administrative choices in these situations.”

“One promising tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist
groups. By this we do not mean the 1960s-style infiltration with a view to
surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future
prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in
weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes
that constitute these networks and groups.”

“We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in
introducing such activity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter
chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to
undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual
premises, casual logic or implications for political action.”

“The principal point of contact between the legal system and
the issues discussed here is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which
creates a presumption of transparency for documents held by administrative
agencies and executive institutions. Unless the government can show that the
requested information falls within one of a designated list of exceptions,
there is a legal right to disclosure, and the Supreme Court has created a broad
concept of ‘information standing’ to permit interested groups and citizens to
enforce that right.”

“FOIA become relevant when the government holds, and
declines to disclose, information that might rebut a circulating conspiracy
theory…Should courts, and law, force the executive to disclose information that
a litigant claims would help rebut conspiracy theories? If the answer is yes,
then control over the timing and nature of the executive’s response strategy
will be partially transferred to litigating groups and judges. If the answer is
no, the executive will retain full control.”

“…The benchmark is not optimal disclosure, but the
disclosure that actually results from adding litigation-based oversight to
executive branch decisions.”

Conclusion

“Our goal here has been to understand the sources of
conspiracy theories and to examine potential government responses…Some
conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine
democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If
government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its
efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy
theories also legitimate them. We have suggested, however, that government can
minimize this effort by rebutting more rather than fewer theories , by
enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration
designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and
informationally isolated social networks.”

To give Mr. Sunstein the benefit of the doubt, he is quoted as saying:

Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

"The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud." "The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." "The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile." "The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy." "That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents." "The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."

Sunstein allowed that "some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true."

In this blog article, Sunstein states that "theories" that turned out to be true includwe:burglarizing of Watergate hotel;Operation Northwoods'CIA's MKULTRA.

I think there is a good chance Sunstein has an open mind and can be convinced that Oswald had associates in the anti-Castro world, that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, and that the JFK assassination was not the work of a lone gunman.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how Mr. Sunstein can be contacted and perhaps persuraded of these issues?